Summary
The Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College, Delhi was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It ran the Tibbia College, Delhi and an attached hostel and managed the Hindustani Dawakhana. The Delhi State Legislature passed the Tibbia College Act, 1952, which dissolved the Board, incorporated a new Board and vested all the property and all the rights, powers and privileges of the old Board in the new Board. The petitioners challenged the validity of the Act on the grounds that the old Board was a corporation whose objects were not confined to Delhi and legislation with regard to it would fall under Entry 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and as such the State Legislature was not competent to pass the impugned Act, (ii) that the setting up of a new Board as corporation was beyond the powers of the State Legislature, (iii) that the Act violated Arts. 14,19 and 31 of the Constitution, (iv) that the Act could not override the Societies Registration Act, 1860 which was a Central Act, and (v) that the legislature acted mala fide in passing the impugned Act.
^Held, (per Sinha, C. J. Das, Sarkar and Ayyangar,JJ.) that the State Legislature was competent to enact the impugned Act. On registration under the Societies Registration Act the old Board did not become a corporation in the sen e of being incorporated within the meaning of Entry 44 of List I; it continued to be an unincorporated society though under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act it had certain privileges analogous to those of corporations. The provisions in the impugned Act relating to the dissolution of the old Board fell within the second part of Entry 32 of List II which included unincorporated societies. Though the impugned Act while creating the new Board gave it a corporate status, it confined its powers and duties to institutions 157in Delhi and limited its rights, powers and privileges to the purposes for which it was created. The provisions of the impugned Act relating to the incorporation of the new Board fell within the first part of Entry 32 of List II.Taff Vale Railway v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, (1900) A.C. 426 and Bonsor v.Musicians' Union, L.R. 1956 A.C. 104, referred to.Krishnan v. Sundaram, (1940) 43 Bom. L.R.562, Boppana Rukminiamma v. Maganti Venkata Ramadas, A.I.R. 1940 Mad. 946, and M. A. Nunnier v. Official Assignee, Madras, A.I.R. 1951 Mad. 875 and Satyavart Sidhantalankar v. The Arya Samaj, Bombay, (1945) 48 Bom. L.R. 341, distinguished.The Servants of India Society, Poona v. The Charity Commissioner of Bombay, (1960) 63 Bom.L.R. 379, approved.Held, further, that the impugned Act did not violate Arts. 14,19 or 31. The petitioner had failed to show that there were other institutions similarly situated as the petitioner and that the petitioner had been picked out for unequal treatment. Since the transfer of management was made by a valid law there was no question of violation of Art. 31 (1); and since the impugned Act did not provide for compulsory acquisition of property Art. 31(2), as it stood at the relevant time, had no application. Neither the dissolved Board nor its member had any right to hold the property of the dissolved Board and there was no infringement of Art. 19(1)(f) involved in the Act vesting the property in the new Board. Under the Societies Registration Act, the members of a society did not acquire any beneficial interest on the dissolution of the society; the only right which they had was to determine as to which other society the property should be' given to for management. This was not a right to property within the meaning of Art. 19(1)(f) and the taking away of such a right by the impugned Act did not violate Art. 19(13(f).(Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India, [1950] S.C.R. 869, relied on.State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose,[1954] S.C.R. 587 and Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. The Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co., Ltd. [1954]S.C.R. 674, distinguished.Held, further, that there was no question of conflict between a law made by Parliament and a law made by the State Legislature as the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was not a law made by Parliament. The State Legislature had the power either to amend the Societies Registration Act in respect of unincorporated societies, or to make a law relating to a corporation provided its activities were confined to Delhi. The Delhi State Legislature did not transgress any of its limitations in 158enacting the impugned Act and no question of mala fides of the legislature arose.K.C. Gajapati Narayn Deo v. The State of Orissa, [1654] S.C.R. 1. relied on.Per, Mudholkar, J., Though the old Board could not be regarded as a corporation as the Societies Registration Act does not provide for incorporation it possessed some of the attributes of a corporation and it was a 'near corporation'or a 'quasi corporation'. It was a legal entity.The second part of Entry 32 of List II did not permit a law to be made which took away from an existing legal entity its powers such as those conferred by the Societies Registration Act and which destroyed the legal entity. The impugned Act could not be supported under the first part of Entry 32 of List II as the objects of the Board were not limited to the Delhi State. But Entries 10 and 28 of List III permitted the State Legislature to make a law dissolving a charitable trust and transferring its property, rights etc. to another institution and the impugned Act could be sustained under these Entries.Servants of India Society, Poona v. The Charity Commissioner of Bombay, (1950) 63 Bom. L.R. 397, The Taff Vale Railway Co. v. The Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, [1901]A.C. 426 and Bonsor v. Musicians'' Union, [1956]A.C. 104, referred to.See the full content of this document
Extract
The Board Of Trustees, Ayurvedic Andunani Tibia College, D VS. The State Of Delhi And Another
PETITIONER: THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, AYURVEDIC ANDUNANI TIBIA COLLEGE, DEL Vs.RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF DELHI AND ANOTHERDATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/10/1961BENCH: DAS, S.K.BENCH: DAS, S.K.SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)SARKAR, A.K.AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALAMUDHOLKAR, J.R.CITATION: 1962 AIR 458 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 156CITATOR INFO : R 1966 SC1307 (8)RF 1970 SC 564 (192)D 1971 SC 966 (10)RF 1976 SC 386 (14)RF 1983 SC 1 (67)R 1985 SC 973 (5)ACT: Registered Society-Whether a corporation- State enactment dissolving such Society and setting up corporation in its place- Constituitiionality of-Tibbia College Act, 1952 (Delhi 5 of 1952). -Registered, Societies Act 1860 (21 of 1860), ss. 5,6,7,13,14- Government of PartC States Act, 1951 (49 of 1951), s.20-Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 19(1)(f), 31 and Seventh Schedule, List I Entry 44, List II Entry 32, ListIII Entries 10 and 28.JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 96 of 1955.Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.Purushottam Tricumdas, J. B. Dadachanji Ravindra Narain and O. C. Mathur, for the petitioner.C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India,B. R. L. Iyengar and T.M. Sen, for the respondents.1961. October 23. The Judgment of Sinha, C.J., Das, Sarkar and Ayyangar, JJ., was delivered by Das, J. Mudholkar, J., delivered a separate Judgment.S. K. DAS, J.-This is a writ petition on behalf of two petitioners. The first petitioner is the Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College, Delhi, through Hakim Mohammed Jamil Khan, stated to be its properly elected Secretary. The second petitioner is Hakim 159Mohammad Jamil Khan himself, who states that he is still one of the trustees or members of the said Board. The petition was initially filed on behalf of the first petitioner. Subsequently, an amendment petition was moved which was allowed by us. As a result of the amendments allowed petitioner No. 2 was added as one of the petitioners, and certain new grounds of attack were added in para. 14 of the petition. To these grounds we shall advert later.The short facts giving rise to the petition are these. One Hakim Mohammad Ajmal Khan was a physician (of Unani medicine) of all-India repute.He lived in Delhi and started a pharmaceutical institute in the town known as Hindustani Dawakhana in the year 1903.He also established a medical college known as the Tibbia College. He died in the year 1927.But before his death, in the year 1911, he along with certain other persons formed a society styled Anjuman-i-Tibbia and had it registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act XXI of 1860). The name of the society was changed in 1915, and it became known as the Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College, Delhi. For convenience we shall refer to it as the Board. The Board ran the Tibbia College' and an attached hostel. The pharmaceutical institute was also managed by it, though at one stage petitioner No. 2 claimed the institute as his private property. Certain rules and regulations were made for the functioning of the Board, which were amended from time to time. The main objects of the Board were thus stated in the rules :- (a) to establish colleges for the purpose of imparting higher education in the Unani and Ayurvedic systems of medicine to the inhabitants of India;(b) to improve the indigenous systems of medicine on scientific lines and for that 160purpose to establish one or more pharmaceutical institutes (dawakhanas); and (c) to have medical books compiled and translated and to adopt other means which might enhance the popularity of those systems and add to the information of the people in general on hygiene etc.The maximum number of members (called trustees in the rule) was 35 to be elected from all the then Provinces of India. It was stated in r. 5 that one-third of the members of the Board should be Hakims and Vaids. The financial year of the Board was to be from April 1 to March 31 of each year, and the annual subscription to be paid by a member of the Board was fixed at Rs. 12/- per annum payable in advance before April 30 of each year. Rule 6 laid down the circumstances in which the office of a member should be deemed to be vacant, and one of such circumstances was the failure of a member to pay him annual subscription before the date fixed for such payment. There were also rules regarding (a) power of inspection...
See the full content of this document